Tuesday, June 29, 2010

RE: My article in Gorkhapatra

June 29, 2010

ProfSuresh Chalise


Dear Prof Chalise

It’s not that difficult to guess how political parties will react; they definitely will not like the idea at all. Actually they will hate it. But that is the correct way for Nepal to take, if she is to rise above the quagmire of corruption where Nepal is stuck.

Thanks a lot for following up on Khimti controversy. Interestingly, Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament has “summoned” me for a hearing on the same topic next week.

Yes, Bikash Thapa has climbed down (conceded that I was merely a witness of the much damned document) but has failed to do so gracefully. Even in yesterday’s piece of his he has continued to spew venom against me. Looks like he is conducting “mission” journalism against me. He must have more than an axe to grind against me. By the number of words he has invested in “describing” me in his piece yesterday he is hell bent on making a very big man out of me. He has spared a very few words for the ministers, secretaries and MD’s of NEA who decided (as well as were instrumental in deciding) to go ahead with the deal. But he was too kind towards me. Maybe with Kantipur’s help I will become an important person very soon.

Talking about him correcting himself, he has also stopped haranguing against me with regard to export of power from Arun III to India (his gripe was I kept silent about export of power from this project and I pointed out that he was incorrect). This time he is decrying my silence as to export of power from Takamoshi 3 and cites my opposition against West Seti project. Fact is: I am in principle very much against export of power while keeping Nepal in dark. As regards my writing articles, I have done so in the case of specific projects that have found their way into Supreme Court. What he is saying is like a wolf’s complaint against a lamb drinking water downstream for dirtying water upstream. GoN has issued licenses for about 11,000 MW and half of them are export oriented projects. I can’t be expected to write articles on each of them. I have written a number of articles against the concept of free energy from export oriented projects and dedicating projects as export oriented. However, I am not against export of power at all. The logical thing for Nepal is to export the power that we in Nepal cannot consume; but not at dirt cheap rate. My recommendation is: Nepal should buy all power from all projects, use most power in Nepal and export the rest at good price (at which we are importing from India).

Additionally in his piece yesterday, he also criticized me for asking for anti corruption action with regards to projects like west Seti et al and went on to say that action should be taken against me too for Khimti. I welcome it. if I have done any wrong I invite him, his publication and all anti corruption agencies of this country to prosecute me.

It will be pleasure to meet you.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: suresh chalise [mailto:srchalise2002@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 12:19
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: My article on ??????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?????

Dear Ratna Sansarji

Thank you for sending your new article. It  has raised many important points. It will be interesting to know how the political parties will react.

I am also trying to follow the debate between you and Bikas Thapa re. Khimti as well as other hydel projects. In today's ( Monday, Asadh 14) Kantipur, Bikas Thapa mentions your signature as an witness only with ref. to Khimti. Does it mean he has corrected his earlier statement about your involvement in Khimti?

It would be nice to meet and discuss the above at a mutually convenient time. Meanwhile, please continue to keep me informed about your articles.

Best regards
f. Suresh Raj Chalise M.B.E.
G.P.O. Box 4965
Kathmandu, NEPAL
Phone: +977-1-4411467/4410711
           srchalise@gmail.com



From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 11:22:54 AM
Subject: Fw: My article on 

Monday, June 28, 2010

संबिधान निर्माणमा शासकीय स्वरुपको बिबाद

नेपाली मतदाताबाट दुई वर्षको जनादेश पाएको संबिधान सभाले आफ्नो कार्यकाल भित्र संबिधान निर्माण गर्न सकेन र यसले आफ्नो व्यवस्थापिकाको अवतारमा संबिधान संशोधन गर्ने अधिकार यान्त्रिकरुपमा प्रयोग गरी आफ्नो कार्यकाल आफैले १ वर्ष थप्यो । थप्न मिल्ने नमिल्ने भन्ने विषय बिबादित छ र अझ महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न छ थपिएको १ वर्षको कार्यकाल भित्र संबिधान लेखन सम्पन्न गरेर जारी हुन्छ कि हुन्न भन्ने ।

आफ्नो ७ सय ३० दिने कार्यकालमा जम्मा १ सय १ पटक मात्र बैठक बसेको यस सभा निकै थोरै विषयहरुको सम्बन्धमा मात्र निक्र्योलमा पुगेकोछ र ८/९ विषय अझै टुंगिन बांकी छ भनिन्छ । टुंगिन बांकी विषय मध्ये शासकीय स्वरुप कस्तो हुने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा बिभिन्न दलहरु बीच चर्को मतभेद छ ।

एमाओबादी दल प्रत्यक्ष्य निर्वाचित कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपति रहने प्रणालीको पक्षधर हो भने नेकपा एमाले र नेपाली कांग्रेसले कार्यकारी अधिकार सम्पन्न प्रधान मन्त्री र आलंकारिक राष्ट्रपति रुचाएतापनि कार्यकारी प्रधान मन्त्री जनताबाट प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचित हुने वा संसदबाट निर्वाचित हुने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा मतैक्य छैन ।

कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिय प्रणाली
आर्थिक हिसाबबाट हेर्दा पनि सरकार प्रमुखमा कार्यकारी अधिकार सम्पन्न प्रधानमन्त्री र राष्ट्र प्रमुखमा आलंकारिक राष्ट्रपतिको व्यवस्था गर्दा मुलुकले अनावश्यक रुपमा दोहरो खर्च व्यहोर्न परेकोछ, राष्ट्र प्रमुख र सरकार प्रमुख दुवै जनाको राजसी ठांटबांट कायम राख्न । साथै समानान्तर रुपमा राष्ट्रपति तथा प्रधानमन्त्रीसंग आबद्ध रहने सल्लाहकारहरुको भिडले गर्दा पनि अनावश्यक खर्च बढेको छ । सकृय राजतन्त्रको ३० वर्षे अवधिमा राजाले प्रमुख सचिव सम्मका पदाधिकारी मात्र राख्ने गरेकोमा गणतन्त्र नेपालको पहिलो राष्ट्रपतिले राज्य मन्त्री सरह सुविधा पाउने ४ जना सल्लाहकार राखेकोले गर्दा समेत अनावश्यक खर्च भएको स्वतः सिद्ध छ । तसर्थ नेपाल जस्तो मुलुकको लागि राष्ट्र प्रमुख र सरकार प्रमुखको छुट्टाछुट्टै व्यवस्था आवश्यक छैन । राष्ट्र प्रमुख र सरकार प्रमुख दुवैको काम गर्ने कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिको व्यवस्था गर्नु उचित हुन्छ ।

संसदबाट निर्वाचित कार्यकारी प्रधानमन्त्रीको कारण २०४८ साल देखि अहिले सम्म पनि नेपालमा अस्थिरता व्याप्त रह्यो जसले गर्दा सांसद किनबेच गर्ने, सांसदलाई पांच तारे होटेलमा बन्धक राख्ने देखि स्वास्थ्यमा कुनै खराबी नभएका सांसदलाई बिरामीको निहुं गरेर सरकारी खर्चमा बैंककको भ्रमणमा पठाउने सम्मका बिकृति बिसंगति भोग्न पर् यो र यसैलाई पछ्याएर पजेरो संकृति समेत नेपाल भित्रियो । यिनै बिकृति बिसंगतिले जन्माएको अस्थिरताले नैं १० वर्षे माओबादी "जनयुद्ध"लाई मलजल गर् यो ।

यहि कारणले गर्दा बिगत २ दशकमा नेपालमा पटक पटक मध्यावधि चुनावहरु गर्नपर्नाले पनि अनावश्यक खर्चहरु भयो । बिपन्न नेपाली नागरिक अनिकालको ग्रास हुनबाट बचाउन, फोहर पानीजनित रोगबाट अल्पायुमा नैं मृत्युवरण गनुेपर्ने बाध्यताबाट मुक्ति दिलाउन रकमको अभाव हुने मुलुकले अनावश्यक रुपमा छिटो छिटो संसदको निर्वाचन गर्नु उपयुक्त हुन्न । तसर्थ संसदको कार्यकाल सम्पन्न हुन अगावै आमनिर्वाचनको लागि खर्च गर्नबाट मुक्ति पाउन समेत संसदको गणितिय समिकरणको आधारमा बन्ने कार्यकारी प्रधानमन्त्रीको व्यवस्था नेपाल सुहाउंदो छैन ।

निरंकुशताको पुनःरागमन
कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिय प्रणाली नरुचाउनेहरुले यो पद्धतिमा निरंकुशताको पुनःरागमनको आशंका व्यक्त गर्दछन् जुन यथार्थपरक छैन । विश्वका धेरै मुलकमा यो प्रणाली सफलतापूर्वक कायम छ र यो प्रणाली नभएको देशहरुमा अन्य तरीकाबाटै निरंकुशताले प्रवेश पाएको छ । अर्थात कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपति नरहने व्यवस्थामा पनि अधिनायकबाद हाबी भएको छ भने कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपति रहने व्यवस्था भएकै मात्र कारणले नेपालले अधिनायकबाद खेप्नु पर्छ भन्ने तर्क युक्तिसंगत छैन । आवश्यक नियन्त्रण र सन्तुलनको अभावमा कार्यकारी प्रधान मन्त्री रहने व्यवस्थामा पनि निरंकुशताले गांजेको छ भने कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिको व्यवस्था भएकै कारणले मात्र निरंकुशताको बाटोमा नेपाल लाग्छ भन्नु अत्युक्ति भन्दा केहि होइन । साथै सबै राजनीतिकर्मी र राजनैतिक दलहरुले लोकतान्त्रिक आचरण गरेमा निरंकुशतालाई इतिहांसको पन्नामा सीमित गर्न सकिन्छ । गैरलोकतान्त्रिक आचरण अमान्य हुने व्यवस्था पनि संबिधानमा गर्नु पर्छ र आम निर्वाचनमा भाग लिने सबै दलको बिधानमा पनि गैर लोकतान्त्रि ब्यबहार अमान्य हुने प्रावधान राख्नु पर्ने बाध्यात्मक परिस्थिति सृजना गर्ने व्यवस्था पनि अब बन्ने संबिधानमा गरिनुपर्छ ।

संसदले महाभियोग लगाउने व्यवस्था गरेर पनि कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिलाई अंकुशमा राख्न सकिन्छ भने विशेष अवस्थामा निश्चित संख्याका मतदाताहरुले प्रत्याव्हान गर्ने व्यवस्था राखेर समेत कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिमा तानाशाह बन्ने महत्वाकांक्षालाई संयमित गराउन सकिन्छ ।

विधायकको कार्यपालिकामा संलग्नता
सरकारका ३ अंग मध्ये न्यायपालिकामा संलग्न व्यक्ति व्यवस्थापिकामा तथा कार्यपालिकामा काम गर्दैनन र व्यवस्थापिका वा कार्यपालिकाका व्यक्ति न्यायपालिकामा संलग्न हुंदैनन् । तर सांसदहरुनै मन्त्री बनेर कार्यपालिकामा जाने हुनाले नेपालमा कायम रहेको शासकीय स्वरुपमा न्यायपालिका स्वतंत्र भए जस्तै कार्यपालिका भने व्यवस्थापिकाबाट स्वतंत्र छैन । त्यसकारण यो परिपाटीलाई नयां संबिधानमा निरन्तरता दिइनु हुन्न ।

यसका साथै अहिलेको परिपाटीमा बिरलै मात्र मन्त्री बन्नेहरु सम्बन्धित विषयमा विशेषज्ञता हासिल गरेको हुन्छन् । यसले गर्दा मन्त्री माथि कर्मचारीतन्त्र हाबी भएको र मन्त्रीको अज्ञानताको अनुचित लाभ कर्मचारीतन्त्रले लिएको पनि देखिएकै हो । अर्को तिर सम्बन्धित विषयको संबेदनशीलताको अभावमा मन्त्रीहरुले मुढेबल प्रयोग गरेर पनि मन्त्रालय संचालन गरेको पनि देखा परेको छ ।

त्यस्तै बिद्यमान परिपाटीमा मन्त्री बनेको सांसदहरुले अत्यधिक समय आफ्नो निर्वाचन क्षेत्रको काममा मात्र खर्चेर समग्र राष्ट्र्रसंग सम्बन्धित विषय वस्तुलाई उपेक्षा गरेको पनि पाइन्छ र ध्यान केन्द्रित गरेको हुन्छ कसरी पुन निर्वाचित हुन सकिन्छ भन्नेमा । अनि यस्तो लाग्छ कि मन्त्री विशेषको जिम्मेवारी निश्चित निर्वाचन क्षेत्र मात्र हो र तिनी समग्र राष्ट्र्रको मन्त्री नभएर जिल्ला विशेष वा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र विशेषको मात्र मन्त्री हुन् । मन्त्री बन्ने मान्छे मतदाता खुशी पार्ने ध्याउन्न भन्दा माथि बस्न सक्ने अवस्था छैन । वर्तमान प्रधानमन्त्रीले पनि बढी समय आफू चुनाव हारेको निर्वाचन क्षेत्रलाई दिएर र बढी बजेट आफ्नो निर्वाचन क्षेत्रमा तान्न तल्लिन भएर यहि आचरणको खुल्ला प्रदर्शन गरेका छन् ।

त्यसकारण अब बन्ने संबिधानमा राष्ट्र्र प्रमुख तथा सरकार प्रमुख दुवैको काम गर्ने राष्ट्र्रपति प्रत्यक्ष निर्बाचनबाट छान्ने व्यवस्था गरेर मन्त्रीमंडल गैर सांसद सम्बन्धित विषयका बिज्ञ ब्याबसायिक व्यक्तिहरुबाट बनाउने प्रावधान राखिनुपर्दछ । सम्बन्धित विषयका बिज्ञ भन्नाले उपयुक्त विषयमा सान्दर्भिक शैक्षिक योग्यता मात्र हासिल नगरी नेपालको धरातलिय यथार्थ बारेका जानकार तथा सम्बन्धित क्षेत्रको अनुभव अनिवार्य हुनुपर्नेछ । मन्त्रीमंडलको लागि मनोनित यस्ता व्यक्तिहरु संसदीय सुनुवाई गरेर बहुमत सांसदहरुलाई स्वीकार्य ठहरिएमा मात्र मंत्री पदमा नियुक्ति गर्ने व्यवस्था पनि गर्नुपर्दछ । यसो गरेमा एक व्यक्ति एक पदको अवधारणा अवलम्बन हुने मात्र नभई व्यवस्थापिका र कार्यपालिका पनि नितान्त स्वतन्त्र हुनेछ । यस अतिरिक्त प्रभावकारी संसदीय अनुमोदनको प्रकृया कार्यान्वयन गर्दा नैतिक पतन भएका व्यक्ति कुनै पनि हालतमा मन्त्री बन्ने अवस्था आउंदैन जुन अहिले बिद्यमान छ भन्न सकिने अवस्था छैन । साथै राजनैतिक दलको संख्या र राजनैतिक मोलमोलाईको आधारमा बढी संख्यामा मन्त्रालय सृजना गर्ने बाध्यताबाट पनि मुलुकले मुक्ति पाउने छ र काम कतब्र्य अधिकार तथा जिम्मेवारी नभएका राज्य मन्त्री, सहायक मन्त्रीको आवश्यकता पनि पर्दैन । यस अतिरिक्त यसरी नियुक्त भएका मन्त्रीहरुले नैं कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपतिको सल्लाहकारको भूमिका निर्वाह गर्ने हुनाले पनि अनावश्यक खर्चमा नियन्त्रण हुन्छ ।

यसका साथै कुनै निर्वाचन क्षेत्र विशेषबाट निर्वाचित नभएका व्यक्तिहरुलाई मन्त्री बनाउनाले कुनै निर्वाचन क्षेत्र विशेष प्रति मात्र न एकोहोरिएर सम्पूर्ण देश प्रति नैं यस्ता व्यक्तिको आस्था हुनेछ र तिनको कृयाकलाप पनि सोहि अनुरुप हुनेछ । यसले गर्दा देशमा असन्तुलित विकासले प्रसय पाउंदैन । मन्त्री बनेको निर्वाचन क्षेत्र भाग्यमानी र अन्य निर्वाचन क्षेत्र अभागी ठहर्ने परिपाटीको अन्त्य हुन्छ ।

प्रभावकारी व्यवस्थापिका
अहिलेको परिपाटीमा निर्वाचित भए पछि अधिकांश सांसदको ध्याउन्न हुन्छ कसरी मन्त्री बन्ने भन्ने । यस्तो परिवेशमा सांसदहरुले राष्ट्र हितको लागि नीति निर्माण, ऐन कानूनको तर्जुमा, कार्यपालिकाको कृयाकलाप नियमन अनुगमन आदि काममा कमै मात्र ध्यान पुग्छ । यस्तोमा देशमा सुशासन कायम रहने अवस्था समेत आउन्न र आएको छैन ।

यो अवस्थामा मन्त्रीहरुका गलत कृयाकलापमा सांसदहरु अनुगमन तथा नियमन पनि फितलो हुन्छ । किनभने अधिकांश सांसद कुनै दिन आफु पनि मन्त्री बन्ने आकांक्षा राख्छन् र अहिले मन्त्रीलाई बढी कडीकडाउ गर्दा आफूले भोली त्यस्तै कडीकडाउको सामना गर्नु पर्ने सम्भावनालाई दृष्टिगत गरेर आंखा चिम्लने चलन विकसित भएको छ । तसर्थ गैर सांसदलाई मात्र मन्त्री बनाउने व्यवस्था गर्दा सुशासनमा अभिबृद्धि हुन्छ भने आफ्नो विषयमा निपुण समेत हुने हुनाले मन्त्रीहरुको कार्यकौशलमा पनि अभिबृद्धि हुन्छ र कर्मचारीतन्त्रले अनुचित लाभ लिने सम्भावना पनि अत्यन्त न्यून हुन्छ ।

भ्रष्टाचार निवारण
भ्रष्टाचार धन सम्पत्तिको लोभ लालचको कारणको अतिरिक्त बाध्यताबस गरिन्छ भनिन्छ । सानो तहका कर्मचारीले दुइ छाक खान, बस्न र आङ ढाक्ने आवश्यकता पूर्ति गर्न नसकेको अवस्थामा भ्रष्टाचार गर्छन् भने चुनावमा सहभागिता जनाउनेहरुले निर्वाचनमा लागेको लगानि उठाउनु पर्ने बाध्यताको कारणले पनि गर्छन । तसर्थ व्यवस्थापिकाको निर्वाचनमा भाग लिने अधिकांश व्यक्तिहरु सांसद मात्र बनेर बस्ने लक्ष्य लिएका हुन्नन् । संसदको चुनावमा भाग लिनेहरुको लक्ष्य नैं मन्त्री बन्ने हुन्छ । यस अतिरिक्त ध्यान लगाएको हुन्छ आफूले निर्वाचनमा गरेको लगानि कसरी उपर गर्ने भन्नेमा । यो किन पनि जरुरी हुन्छ भने आफू र आफ्ना आसेपासेको निर्वाचनमा भएको खर्च उठाउन मन्त्री नभई सकिन्न र सामान्य सांसदले पाउने तलब भत्ता सुविधाबाट निर्वाचनमा गरेको लगानि असूल उपर हुंदैन । तसर्थ गैर सांसदलाई मन्त्री बनाउने प्रावधान संविधानमा राख्नाले मन्त्री बनेर अकूत धन कमाउने परिपाटी पनि बन्द भएर भ्रष्टाचार कम हुन्छ । अनि मन्त्रीहरुले भ्रष्टाचार नगरेको अवस्थामा कर्मचारीतन्त्रले पनि भ्रष्टाचार गर्ने आंट गर्दैनन् र ब्यापारीवर्गले घूसखोरलाई खुसी पार्न नपर्ने अवस्थामा अत्यधिक मुनाफा कमाउने, कालो बजारी लगायतका काम गर्न पनि साहस गर्दैनन् । यो व्यवस्थाको अर्को फाइदा हुनेछ चुनावमा अचाक्ली धेरै खर्च गर्ने प्रचलनमा नियन्त्रण आएर ।

निष्कर्श
निश्चय पनि कार्यकारी राष्ट्रपति रहने व्यवस्था एमाओबादी दललाई मन पर्नेछ भने व्यवस्थापिकाका सदस्यहरुलाई मन्त्री नबनाउने प्रस्ताव भने एमाओबादी लगायत कुनै पनि राजनैतिक दललाई मन पर्ने छैन । तर मातृभूमिको हित चिताउने राजनैतिक दलहरुले माथि उल्लिखित बुंदाहरुमा असहमत हुने ठाउं नहुनाले यो प्रस्तावित प्रावधान संबिधानमा समावेश गरेर सबै राजनीतिकर्मीहरुले आआफ्नो देशभक्तीको पहिचान अवश्य पनि दिनेछन् । सुझाव गरिएको परिपाटी धेरै मुलुकमा सफलतापूर्वक संचालन भएकोबाट नेपालले सिक्ने बेला आएको छ ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
२०६७ आषाढ १४ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित ।

Friday, June 25, 2010

RE: About the Article in Kantipur

June 25, 2010
To: Dipak Bastakoti'
Cc: Mohan Lohani

Dipakjee

I have explored options open to me which are as follows:

1. I can demand Kantipur to contradict what was published. They are obliged to do so. However, I will be required to prove that I am not what I had been described as. Meaning I will have to prove that I am not a “khalnayak.” If there is adequate evidence it is possible to prove that a person is a murderer if that person has killed somebody. But there is no way that an innocent person can be proved that he didn’t commit the crime of murdering another person. Therefore, the internationally accepted principle, which is: a person is innocent until proven guilty, is not applicable in Nepal with respect to yellow journalism. When media resorts to yellow journalism, someone like me is caught in a vice grip. Because, in Nepal journalism has become license for character assassination.

Additionally, they do offer to publish a contradiction, if I were to send one. But will be published in such corner of least read page and manner that nobody will even see it or be able to find it. Further they will edit it so heavily that my contradiction will end up reading that I am admitting to being a "khalnayak."
2. I can file litigation in court for the slander/libel against me. There too I will have to furnish evidence to prove that I am not a khalnayak. Additionally I will have to spend quite a lot of money in court fees and legal fees. I am even prepared to bear such cost but the court will take its own time and it will take more than a couple of decades to receive the final verdict which may go in favor of the one who is better at bribing judges.

Dipakjee

In the above circumstance, resorting to any one option will amount to biting the dog back which I don’t feel like doing. From this perspective, this country has indeed become unlivable besides many other reasons like lack of law and order, no water, no electricity, etc. However, I am determined to continue to stay here and struggle to ensure that the future generations don’t have to face these very problems.

A silver lining in the black cloud is the fact that Sudhir Sharma, editor of Kantipur has offered to meet and discuss the matter with me. I am looking forward to that meeting.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

________________________________________

From: Dipak Bastakoti [mailto:yfvd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:12
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur

Hi Ratna Sansar sir,

How are you doing ? What is the outcome now with Kantipur ?.. Any good news to share ?
Dipak

--- On Thu, 17/6/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur
To: "Dipak Bastakoti"
Date: Thursday, 17 June, 2010, 1:33 AM

Dipakjee

I am thankful to you for your solidarity.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

RE: About the Article in Kantipur

June 17, 2010

To: Dipak Bastakoti
Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur

Dipakjee

I am thankful to you for your solidarity.

Complaining can be done in accordance with prevailing Nepal law and the law at the moment is heavily lopsided in favor of those indulging in yellow journalism. Other types of pressure will be more effective.

In his latest email the editor of Kantipur has sought a meeting with me to discuss the matter. When I meet him I will tell him to stop this type of journalism and explain to him that it will erode credibility of his publication. I know him to be a decent guy.

Yes, Dipakjee I am staying on in this country to ensure that no harm is done to our motherland. I will definitely continue to do so.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Dipak Bastakoti [mailto:yfvd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 14:44
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur

Ratna Sansar sir,
I am very much pleased with your reply. There is nothing of curse to be an expert // the corrupt society, human ambitions to earn lot of money and be rich ( as westerner teach )  and corrupt press try to prove it only.. I always inspired by those who are living in Nepal and serving with their best that is why i just thought to write as " I heard some TV interview with you and read some articles related." make me inspired and request to go against Kantipur on the assasination of your career !!
I am still thinking that you must complain this to government offices at least ( CDO ) to raise the voice against these "yellow" people and will have written documents against the wrong article... Editor may have to go to CDO office to clarify, it should give them more pressure to do good for other people ( what you think ? )

I also read the reply of Kantipur and they are feeling something from the article and they may rethink for the next time to other figures,,, and your stand with Editor is good so they are accepting it !

I will keep in touch ! Do your best for Nepal ! I wish you all the best,

Regards
Dipak Bastakoti



Tuesday, June 22, 2010

RE: About the Article in Kantipur

June 15, 2010

To: Dipak Bastakoti Cc: mohan lohani Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur

Dipakjee

First of all I will say that you need not be disheartened, nor disappointed. I am not saying anything because I am afraid. I am merely exercising caution. If I feared as you have imagined, I could have left this place for greener pastures. I know of many people who have left this country and are forced to work abroad in positions that doesn't befit their qualification and experience. In my case, that will not happen. As I am a CPA from US, I can easily make $ 25,000/month doing professional work there. But I have consciously chosen to stay here; notwithstanding the problems.

But I am not in favor of doing things which will amount to biting a dog back just because the dog has bitten a person. I am basing my decision on ground reality. What I have said about the court system here applies to all citizens of Nepal and my being expert or not is not relevant. As you have rightly pointed out Katuwal benefited due to the failure of court system and similarly Kantipur will benefit if I were to go to court due to that very rot in the system.

However, from the response of the editor of Kantipur (I have sent you his email to me and my response to that) it is clear that Kantipur correspondent has made a mistake and the editor has in a very cryptic manner realized the mistake.

First of all I don't consider myself an expert and more importantly, it is not, please be assured that, a curse to be an expert.

Take care and keep in touch.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Dipak Bastakoti [mailto:yfvd@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:08 To: rsansar@mos.com.np Cc: m_p_lohani@yahoo.com Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur

रत्न संसार सर, तपाईंहरुको कुरा सुनेर झन निराश भए अब भन्नुस् तपाईं जस्तो फिगर अदालत, वोकिल , पत्रकार देखी डराउनु पर्छ भने नेपालका अरु जनताले कसरी न्याय पाएका होलान मलाई पनि थाहा , कान्तिपुरका तर्फबाट सम्भु थापाले बहस गर्नेछन, जसले दिपक मनाङे , ॠषि धमला हरुको मुद्दाका बहसकर्ता हुन यो मुद्दालाई १० बर्ष कुर्नु पर्दैन किनभने तपाईंलाई हराउन पर्ने केश धेरै लामो समय लगाइदैन यो कहाँ कटुवाल जत्तिको मान्छेको मुद्दा हुनेछ प्रेस काउन्सिल कुन पार्टिको पर्यो कुन्नी, तेसले निर्धारणा गर्ने होला फेरी, सर तपाई एक्स्पेर्ट हुनु नै ठुलो अभिशप हो कि !  
Regards,
Dipak Bastakoti


--- On Sun, 13/6/10, Mohan Lohani wrote:

From: Mohan Lohani
Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur
To: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha"
Cc: yfvd@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, 13 June, 2010, 1:26 AM
Dear Ratna Sansarji,
Thanks for your reply and glad to know that your are weighing several options before you go to court .By the way, I heard both Hari Rokka,CA member and Bikash Thapa on BBC Nepali yesterday Saturday and Bikash had a tough time defending himself when Hari Rokka hit him hard,although Rokka himself is not above board.When Bikash charged him bluntly that Rokka is a Maoist spokesman and that the Maoists are trying to sabotage power projects, he was on the defensive.Any way,Bikash  has now become a controversial figure.
Wishing you all the best and with regards,
Mohan Lohani

--- On Sat, 6/12/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: RE: About the Article in Kantipur
To: "Mohan Lohani" , "Dipak Bastakoti"
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 6:07 AM
Dear Prof. Lohani and Dipakjee

Thanks for your solidarity. I am exploring the options I have. I am also waiting for their response to my latest emailed letter. I am given to understand that I first will need to approach Press Council before approaching a court. The problem with courts in Nepal is that they take inordinately long time to decide cases and will become very expensive. Kantipur being a rich media house can afford huge amount in legal costs which will be beyond my means to match.
 
Some well wishers of mine have also opined that it is not appropriate for a person to bite a dog back if the dog bites the person. I don’t want to be in this situation. In Nepal people have already learned quite a lot about this particular reporter and very few people believe in what he writes these days as he has resorted to the practice of writing based on “consideration” received or not given.
 
I am keeping my options open and promise to keep you posted with the development here.
 
With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:21
To: Dipak Bastakoti
Cc: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Re: About the Article in Kantipur
 
Dear Dipakji,
I agree with you that if Ratna Sansarji feels that there is character assassination in Bikash Thapa 's article in which he has been projected as a villain(khlanayak),he could go to court and file a case of defamation.If a person is not guilty,he/she should not be scared to face the open society.Thanks for your advice
Tks and regds,
Mohan Lohani

--- On Thu, 6/10/10, Dipak Bastakoti wrote:

From: Dipak Bastakoti
Subject: About the Article in Kantipur
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Cc: m_p_lohani@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 6:18 AM
Dear Ratna Sansar / Lohani sir,

I also read the news article by Bikash Thapa as usual I do about the Hydro and energy of Nepal .
When I read the recent article where your name also reads as Khalanayaka Nepalese Hydro sectors shocked me because some of your interview in TV and other programs and from your blog are quite good and inspirable.

If you are not associated and not Khalanayak of the project please go to the court for defamation and go against these corrupt and yellow writers and journalists and newspapers !!  ( When they write all against Maoists you all clap and laugh, when they write against you then what are you looking for ??? )
Regards
Dipak
Singapore



Monday, June 21, 2010

RE: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

June 13, 2010

Dipak Bastakoti
Singapore

Dipakjee

I don’t know about the likes of the people (mainly politicos) you have mentioned, but I, for one, am determined to pursue the line you have recommended to the extent possible. However, it will not be prudent to take it too far such that the proverb of man biting back a dog to revenge the dog biting the man comes true.

I have noted with interest the example you have cited. However, unfortunately for a person in Nepal, Singapore is like heaven and Nepal will need to endeavor quite a lot to reach there and Nepal will never reach there with current crop of leaders. Perhaps for that very reason politicos keep on citing example of Singapore and promise to convert Nepal into Singapore ad nauseaum.

Having been practicing as a legal professional for last 35 years I know quite a lot about court system of that country. Due to that very reason foreign investors coming to invest in Nepal, for example, chose courts of Singapore to settle disputes. Courts in Nepal are neither that efficient nor are they free of corruption.

I will be testing the system here to see if it protects an ordinary citizen or joins hand with yellow journalism.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Dipak Bastakoti [mailto:yfvd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 13:38
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Re: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

Dear All,

I am personally also always unhappy with Nepalese Media, Nepalese intellectuals, top government officials and Nepalese politicians as other million poors and marignalized citizens. After my ability to read, write and know national and international circumstances we can imagine, how you top class people are getting benefits from those who are unware of 'ALL CHALAKHEL " through which you all earn good life !!

If the fact is true from Bikash Thapa and Kantipur, how we can believe LAXMAN GHIMIRE, who make loud noise about current political situation and who objects many issues raised by Maoist Party.

How I can say good to PRADIP NEPAL, who always refuse to accept the issues raised by Maoist Party and marginalized peoples ??

How can we believe on these Water, Resources, bla bla experts if this is true and how we can believe the projects and programs they suggest truly benefit the millions poor people living in the villages with all miseries..

If this is not true why these media people are killing others respect ??? Press freedom, is highly raised but are we looking for the freedom of press who can kill someone ( Sirisha Karki ), Who can defame and quickly circulate disrespect of all our political leaders who truly sacrifice their life for others ? Who always put oil on fire of social clashes and conflicts ?

Please Ratna sansar sir , if you are right take this case to court and get millions of rupees from Bikash Thapa or Kantipur just like what the singapore primeminister and family is doing time to time from foreign media so noone can write against them:

Put your all effort so Sudhir or Bikash like journalists never ever can try to defame anyone,,,with the weapon of PRESS FREEDOM..

The line below for your kind reference !!

For the article “All in the Family,” written by Philip Bowring and published in the 15 February 2010 issue of the International Herald Tribune. As well as an apology, this US media company had to pay 114,000 US dollars in damages.

Regards,

Dipak Bastakoti
Pandrung, 02 Jarang

Friday, June 18, 2010

RE: About the Article in Kantipur

June 12, 2010
Mohan Lohani & Dipak Bastakoti

Dear Prof. Lohani and Dipakjee

Thanks for your solidarity. I am exploring the options I have. I am also waiting for their response to my latest emailed letter. I am given to understand that I first will need to approach Press Council before approaching a court. The problem with courts in Nepal is that they take inordinately long time to decide cases and will become very expensive. Kantipur being a rich media house can afford huge amount in legal costs which will be beyond my means to match.

Some well wishers of mine have also opined that it is not appropriate for a person to bite a dog back if the dog bites the person. I don’t want to be in this situation. In Nepal people have already learned quite a lot about this particular reporter and very few people believe in what he writes these days as he has resorted to the practice of writing based on “consideration” received or not given.

I am keeping my options open and promise to keep you posted with the development here.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:21
To: Dipak BastakotiCc: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Re: About the Article in Kantipur

Dear Dipakji,

I agree with you that if Ratna Sansarji feels that there is character assassination in Bikash Thapa's article in which he has been projected as a villain(khlanayak),he could go to court and file a case of defamation.If a person is not guilty,he/she should not be scared to face the open society.Thanks for your advice

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

--- On Thu, 6/10/10, Dipak Bastakoti wrote:

From: Dipak Bastakoti yfvd@yahoo.com
Subject: About the Article in Kantipur
To: rsansar@mos.com.npCc: m_p_lohani@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 6:18 AM

Dear Ratna Sansar / Lohani sir,

I also read the news article by Bikash Thapa as usual I do about the Hydro and energy of Nepal.
When I read the recent article where your name also reads as Khalanayaka Nepalese Hydro sectors shocked me because some of your interview in TV and other programs and from your blog are quite good and inspirable.

If you are not associated and not Khalanayak of the project please go to the court for defamation and go against these corrupt and yellow writers and journalists and newspapers !! ( When they write all against Maoists you all clap and laugh, when they write against you then what are you looking for ??? )
Regards
Dipak
Singapore

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Fw: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

June 15, 2010

Mr Sudhir Sharma
Editor
Kantipur
Vernacular Daily

Sudhirjee

Thanks a lot for your response to my emails.

I appreciate the fact that you have not only understood that I merely signed the document in the capacity of company secretary as a witness (and I wasn’t the main signatory signing the document on behalf of Himal Power), as was alleged by your paper wrongly but also for acknowledging the fact in your email to me below.

I have noted with interest your statement that if I “have difference on it,” I “can send my opinion too.” I wonder what opinion I should be sending. In the lighter vein, should I send an opinion piece in which I call your correspondent, your editorial team and your publication a bunch of “villains” in order to reciprocate/retaliate the wrong done to me by your paper and publishing house! I cannot and will not do so as it will be uncharacteristic of me and is beneath me. I believe in human decency and I will not call anyone a villain without any basis and even if I have a basis to call somebody a villain, I will not call him as such without any rhyme and reason. Moreover, it will be another act of yellow journalism if I was to pen such a write up and Kantipur was to publish it. Therefore, I have no plan as such to write and send to you an “opinion” piece in lines of what you published last Monday.

On the other hand your asking me to send my opinion to refute what had been published amounts to me being asked to prove that I am not a “villain (Khalnayak)”. Your paper assassinates my character baselessly for no rhyme and reason and going by the process you have described, I am now required to “send my opinion” substantiating that I am not a villain. I wonder how does a person, even if he isn’t a villain, prove that he isn’t a villain! In order not to indulge in yellow journalism, it is incumbent on your paper that the editorial policy be such that people writing, even their personal opinion, do not resort to character assassination and if a person does indeed fit the description of the write up, then the writer will be required to substantiate that the person actually is what the writer has described him/her to be. In that particular piece being referenced here the writer of the opinion has not bothered with any such decency. A newspaper that does neither indulge in yellow journalism, nor encourages yellow journalism will not allow publication of even “opinions” if the piece is unable to substantiate the allegation. In other words, if a contributor to your paper (writing articles) is to write similar pieces (resorting to character assassination baselessly), I am sure that it will not meet with the editorial approval and, therefore, rightly, will not be published. I am describing here a prudent editorial policy, which I am sure Kantipur too adheres to. Therefore, being a member of your editorial team or staff of your publication should not be allowed to be abused as a license for character assassination of people.

I am saddened to note that, in this particular instance the editorial policy was not put to practice as the writer is one of your correspondents and, therefore, your paper also cannot shirk responsibility for the piece by simply saying that “what had published in Kantipur represents purely writer's views”. In other words, similar views from other contributors would not have been published in this manner (making baseless allegations against people without being able to substantiate) and this piece was allowed to be published as it came from one of your team members. Do feel free to correct me if I have failed to assess your editorial policy correctly.

As you have rightly understood that I did witness the execution of Khimti PPA in the capacity of merely as a company secretary who does not have any authority to decide what should and will be written in this document. Besides, I don’t stand (and never stood) to benefit from this PPA as I don’t have any stake (ownership), whatsoever, in this project. If one was to deem those benefiting unduly from this PPA are the villains, then the owners of Khimti may deserve to be called “villains” if your correspondent was to be able to substantiate the allegations. However, I don’t support/subscribe to this idea either.

Additionally your correspondent had also made baseless allegation that I got earlier incarnation of Arun III cancelled merely to have it given to India and went on to say that I am now staying quiet as India is to benefit from the new incarnation of Arun III. After receiving my email your correspondent tried feebly to establish that it was I who was behind this PPA without much success (although he tagged it as "TATHYA AAFAI BOLCHHA"). I am glad that you at least seem to understand the difference between signing a PPA on behalf of HPL and witnessing it in the capacity of company secretary.

However, he has failed to pick up the gauntlet that I had thrown with regard to Arun III. In this respect too the piece you have published has defamed me and tarnished my image. This amounts to slander/libel.

In view of the above what you have proposed/suggested doesn’t mitigate the damage caused by your paper. I look forward to hear from you at your earliest.

With best regards,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Senior Water Resource Analyst
________________________________________
From: Editor-Kantipur [mailto:editor@kantipur.com.np]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:43
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

Dear Ratna Sansar jee,

Thanks for the all mails. Yeah I saw that document where you signed as the company secretary, and what had published in Kantipur represents purely writer's views. If you have differences on it, you can send your opinion too.

Best,

sudheer
----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Sudhir Sharma ; kanti@kantipur.com.np
Cc: Bikash Thapa ; Dipak Gyawali ; Ajaya Dixit ; insightbb@gala.net
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:02 AM
Subject: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

Sudhirjee

I must congratulate you for your resourcefulness in being able to dig up the attached documents, made available by your correspondent.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

RE: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

June 12, 2010

Mr Suman Sharma
Ministry of Physical Planning and Works

Sumanjee

The “normal practice” you have described is very strange to me. I have been practicing as a corporate lawyer (besides being a management professional who is also a chartered accountant) for last 35 years and I haven’t ever come across what you have described as the normal practice; neither in Nepal nor abroad. Instead of boring you with the theory behind it, I will relate here what actually took place in the case of this PPA in question.

The very first PPA was signed between NEA and Himal Power in March 1994, before I joined HPL, and I subsequently learnt from the people involved at that time that the then minister of state for water resources Mr Laxman Ghimire and the secretary Surya Nath Upadhyay deliberated and decided on all the important parameters of the agreement and clerical work was undertaken by top people in NEA. It was signed by Ajit N Thapa on behalf of NEA, who was fully involved in the negotiations. The revised PPA was signed in January 1996 at which time Pashupati Shamsher was minister and Dwarika Nath Dhungel was secretary and the two of them deliberated and decided on all the important issues and was eventually signed by Kirti Chand Thakur on behalf of NEA. One thing that needs to mentioned here that Mr Thakur wasn’t involved in the negotiations and he signed the PPA very next day of his joining NEA (incumbent MD Santa B Pun refused to sign the PPA and he was transferred to the ministry to make way for Mr Thakur). Therefore, unlike Ajit Thapa, Kirti Thakur may not have been aware of what he was signing. However, important revisions to the original PPA were agreed in Manila for the negotiation of which Minster Pradip Nepal and Secretary Surya Nath Upadhyay visited Manila in late 1995. So both of them were deeply involved in what was agreed to with regard to the important issues in the revised PPA. Things weren’t decided at bureaucratic level as you have mentioned as the normal practice.

On the side of Himal Power, the negotiation team comprised of its board members, all Norwegians and the general manager, a British citizen. This team was supplemented by experts from the parent company of HPL called Statkraft SF which held 75% shares in HPL and ABB Energi and Kvæerner Energi, these two held 5% each in HPL (all from Norway). This team was assisted by an American lawyer based in London who used to charge $ 350 per hour and have had experience of executing many PPAs all over the world. Unlike the process you have described, the important people of high level were charged with higher responsibilities.
I wasn’t involved in the negotiations as I was not senior enough in the management hierarchy, nor did I have international experience in PPA (till that time no PPA had ever been executed in Nepal).

In this piece of yellow journalism, Kantipur has gone out of the way to portray certain people as villains selectively. They have left out from the honors list NEA MD Ajit Thapa, Secretary Dwarika Dhugel et al. Nor did the person witnessing on behalf of NEA figure in the honor list. There must be some “consideration” involved in this too. The write up has singled me out for the honors on HPL side; looks like they have an axe to grind against me.

Some journalists do write on the basis of “consideration” received or failed to receive. Bikash Thapa, author of the piece, too seems to be drifting towards that. Meaning if the subject of news is unable to make him happy, then the news will come out in a different light and angle and vice versa. In one of his write ups a few weeks back he unashamedly advocated that Arjun Karki should be given the position of executive chairperson of Upper Tamakoshi project after badmouthing the current incumbent who is there on ex-officio basis from NEA. Without even bothering to establish that the person, on whose behalf he was making a case, is qualified for that position and also ignoring due process which has to be both competitive and transparent, he unfairly criticized Energy Minister for failing to appoint Arjun Karki in that position. Obviously, he was pleading the case for some consideration. He and Kantipur also seem to have forgotten that job of media is to report news, but not to make out a case for appointment of a person to a specific position. The sector seems to be degenerating badly.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: suman sharma [mailto:shsuman@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:54
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: RE: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

What is merely witnessing on behalf of Himal Hydro? Isn't the normal practice in signing agreements is that both the heads of the corresponding institutions sign on the accord while those who prepared the actual document, responsible in executing the agreeent sign as witness! Was it different in this case?

From: rsansar@mos.com.np
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:05:32 +0545

Sudhirjee

Monday, June 14, 2010

RE: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

June 12, 2010
Mr Chiran S Thapa
Cc: Santa B Pun

Dear Chiranjee

I wonder how on earth did you get the idea that I have been pushed off the pedestal! In the first place, I was never on a pedestal and if, for any reason, by some mistake, I was put on one, then it is beyond the likes of Bikash Thapa to push me off it. Yellow journalism is never effective. It can play to the gallery by providing cheap stuff for a while, however, people who read and once believed him tire out very soon. Those who know me too well they will never believe in the stuff written by this person. It doesn’t matter in the case of people who don’t know me. He, in particular, have, I suspect, started to write on the basis of “consideration”, received or otherwise.

I am one of the few who admire your fellow Xavierian (therefore, I have cced this email to him) but I happen to disagree with the very question you are posing: “Which is more important for Nepal, water or electricity?” I don’t believe Punjee would also subscribe to your ideas. No trade off is involved at all. Your question seems to be based on the premise that the two are mutually exclusive, which is absolutely untrue. People do ask this question failing to fully understand what water resource is. Because the question you have posed fails to take into account the multidimensional uses of water. There is no need for juxtaposing our consumptive uses of water with hydropower; nor there will ever be. For example, building a multipurpose project means generating quality (peak-in) power and also generating augmented/regulated flow of water for consumptive uses during the dry season. In Nepal there is too much water during wet season and very little in the dry season; a cycle of flood and drought. Once a multipurpose project is built, the reservoir will capture excess water of the rainy season thus averting flood and generate augmented/regulated flow round the year means more water during dry season for water supply, irrigation, fishery, industrial uses, etc. Besides, this also opens up the opportunity for navigation and water sport based tourism. In the case of run-of-the-river project, as hydropower is non-consumptive use of water, it doesn’t preempt any consumptive use of water and, hence, no tradeoff is involved in this type of project too.

I don’t believe there is any river specific formula. However, so far we, upper riparian country, have been getting the rough end of the stick and the lower riparian country has been running away with disproportionate share (in treaties through Koshi to Mahakali). If you were to insist in calling it a formula then, the formula should be equitable share of benefit to both the countries involved based not just on cash investment for implementation of a specific proejct but full life cycle cost which will comprise of cash capital cost and non cash cost (like submergence of land and displacement of populace) during implementation phase as well as operation phase. Precedents can be found in the agreements reached between US and Canada as well as South Africa and Lesotho.

In this backdrop your third component becomes irrelevant. Because, as soon as a reservoir is built, it will not be for a shorter period of time, in line with your preference. It becomes a permanent feature as long as the dam isn’t decommissioned which is entirely a different ball game.


With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha


-----Original Message-----
From: C.S. Thapa [mailto:cst21@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of C.S. Thapa
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:33
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

Ratna Sansarji,

After reading the Kantipur article, I spoke to a historian and asked whether we are now down to one reliable guide on Nepal's water resources: fellow Xavierian Santa Bahadur Pun, you having been pushed off the pedestal. I have been using Santa's question: Which is more important for
Nepal, water or electricity, and asking whether there cannot be a tradeoff. Our consumptive use(s) for irrigation, drinking water, etc could be juxtaposed with our needs for hydroelectricity, water transport,fishing, etc. What is the river-specific formula - a bigger-win situation for upper
riparian Nepal for a lower-win for the region's lower riparians? The third component is time, consumptive use of water, storage for nonconsumptive needs over a period of time, gnenerally the shorter the better.

Your letter to Kantipur will receive I assure you my full and objective consideration.

Best,

Chiran




On Jun 7 2010, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

>Sudhirjee
>

Friday, June 11, 2010

Re: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

June 11, 2010
Mr Sudhir Sharma
Editor
Kantipur
Vernacular Daily
Sudhirjee

I must congratulate you for your resourcefulness in being able to dig up the attached documents, made available by your correspondent. And I thank you for confirming that it was not I who executed the PPA with NEA, in contrast to what your paper reported last Monday. From the document you have unearthed it is absolutely clear that the PPA was executed by Mr Harwood on behalf of Himal Power Company and Mr Thakur on behalf of NEA. As I mentioned in my email of 7t June, I was merely a witness to the signing of the PPA. You will agree with me that this document corroborates my statement.

Your correspondent has tagged his email as "TATHYA AAFAI BOLCHHA" (fact speaks for itself) and I fully agree with him (I am glad that I could agree with him for a change). The document he has produced goes on to prove what I mentioned in my initial email that I signed the document as a witness and the PPA was signed on behalf of Himal Power Limited by a person with necessary right and authority. In other words, this document availed by your correspondent contradicts what he has reported and repeated in the email below that I signed the document on behalf of HPL and proves that I signed it as a witness only.

Your paper has portrayed me as a villain for executing the PPA wrongly and your correspondent has, in his email below, continued to harp that I “signed on behalf of Himal Power Company” wrongly. This can happen for two reasons. One, your publication, publishing house, editorial team and correspondent are unaware of the distinction between what is the role and responsibility who signs a document and that of a witness. I would like to believe that this is not the case.

Two, there is a possibility that you could be doing this to slander/libel/defame me. If this is the case then I would be impelled to explore what course is open to me to mitigate the damage your publication has meted out to me.

I have noted with curiosity that your paper has spared Mr Thakur from the list of “villains”; he actually signed the PPA on behalf of NEA. Although I am glad for Mr Thakur, but has also got me wondering what is involved in him being spared!

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

-----Original Message-----
From: Insightbb Database [mailto:webmasster@insightbb.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:49
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: Sudhir Sharma; Bikash Thapa; Dipak Gyawali; Ajaya Dixit
Subject: Re: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

Dear All,

"TATHYA AAFAI BOLCHHA"

I need not to comment on Ratna Sansar's claims. But here is the image of
PPA of Khimti, where 'Senior Water Resources Analyst'(?) Mr.Shrestha has
signed on behalf of Himal Power Company. We all know that how much Khimti
has been looting to Nepalese people.


Regards
Bikash Thapa


On Mon, June 7, 2010 7:34 pm, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:
> Sudhirjee
>

Thursday, June 10, 2010

RE: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

June 10, 2010

Prof Dr Mohan Lohani

Dear Prof. Lohani

Some journalists do write on the basis of “consideration” and Bikash Thapa too seems to be drifting towards that. Meaning if the subject of news is unable to make him happy, then the news will come out in a different light and vice versa. In one of his write ups a few weeks back Bikash Thapa unashamedly advocated that Arjun Karki should be given the position of executive chairperson of Upper Tamakoshi project after badmouthing the current incumbent who is there on ex-officio basis from NEA. Without even bothering to establish that this person is qualified for that position and also ignoring due process which has to be both competitive and transparent, he unfairly criticized Energy Minister for failing to appoint Arjun Karki in that position. Obviously, he was pleading the case for some consideration.

For me, I cannot be deterred by such a person and, therefore, Bikash Thapa will not succeed to deter me from my “crusade”.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 8:25
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

It is sad to read articles like this in the Kantipur,a well know vernacular daily ,which is trying to indulge in' yellow journalism'.I have failed to understand why Bikash Thapa who writes quite frequently about Nepal's energy crisis with particular focus on hydorelectric power projects has dragged yu into this Khimti quagmire.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: FW: ...thought Kantipur didn't indulge in yellow journalism
To: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha" rsansar@mos.com.np
Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 10:25 AM

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Federalism and Water Resources in Nepal

Ratna Sansar Shrestha
1. Preliminary
Is federalism a reality? What would be Nepali federalism like? The federal structure of the country is yet to be decided politically. Nepali people want to know about federalism and its positive and negative impacts. Will it be beneficial to divide a small country like Nepal into provinces with the right to self-determination? If yes, how many provinces should be there? What will be the consequences after the delineation of provinces? The political leadership should think about it in time and seek the opinion, support and approval of the sovereign Nepali people. We should learn from the disappearance of Yugoslavia from the world map as a result of adopting federalism without any preparation.

It will not be wrong to say that the decision to adopt federalism was not backed by people’s pre-informed consent or through a general consensus. Rather, it was a decision made by a limited leadership, without any homework and giving proper thoughts about it. It should be understood in the background that before the election of the Constituent Assembly (CA), the Interim Legislature-Parliament made the first amendment of the article 138 (1) of the Interim Constitution 2007, with the provision that the country would be restructured with a federal system of governance. Perhaps it would not be wrong to say that the ideas of a limited few were imposed on the people in the name of a progressive move forward without any consultation, or seeking prior consent or approval of the general public about state restructuring, and whether or not to adopt federalism or other system of governance. Experts allege that the act of deciding to adopt federalism by the members of the Interim Legislature-Parliament by using the powers similar to that of the elected Constituent Assembly is a violation of the right to self determination of the sovereign people. An issue like adopting federal system (of governance) should have been approved only after holding extensive brainstorming, discussions and debates with the people. Actually the Interim Legislature-Parliament has attempted to preempt Constituent Assembly in the matter of deciding whether Nepal should stay unitary or adopt federal structure. An unelected body as such doesn’t any such right. In a recent verdict Supreme Court too has decreed that federalism as fait accompli without being solicited by any litigant.

Federalism was not declared in Nepal on the basis of the research studies on its positive and negative impacts in the country. Nor was it declared by forming a State Restructuring Commission according to the provisions of the Interim Constitution. No deliberation was held to decide whether the adoption of federalism in a small country like Nepal will prove to be a progressive move or otherwise. This has created confusion whether Nepal should continue the unitary system or adopt a federal system. As discussed above, the provision of adopting federalism by amending the Interim Constitution has deprived sovereign Nepali citizens of exercising their right to full and meaningful participation in decision making in matters pertaining to water resources in the future progressive set up. This has also violated the important element and right to environmental justice.

It will not be wrong to say that the elected CA members and Nepali people have been deprived from the opportunity of providing their consent after holding extensive brainstorming and serious interactions and discussions as to how the available water resources could be used for the maximum benefit to the country and the people. What arrangements could be made for equitable access to and utilization of and sharing of benefits from it? It will be appropriate to hold serious discussion on the matters, rights, responsibilities and duties relating to the water resources, and incorporate them as basic elements in the constitution.

In Nepal’s context, water resources is as important as other issues such as nationality, economy, structural arrangements, administration, security perspective and national integrity. It will be better to be clear about the challenges of optimum exploitation of water resources, its management and usage of the benefit for the betterment of Nepal and Nepali people in the federal context. What will be the model of the constitution? What kinds of provisions relating to water resources should be included in it? It would be better if the Constituent Assembly (CA) discusses on the utilization of water resources, and formulates necessary provisions by arriving at a proper decision while adopting federalism in the country. Whether or not the country adopts federalism, the problems described in this concept paper are inherent challenges pertaining to the utilization of water resources.

2. Water Resources in Federalism
While some people understand water resources only as hydropower, others have extensive understanding of this natural resources which is instrumental in meeting basic need for livelihood along with the need for adequate pure and healthy drinking water, as well as its use in sanitation, irrigation, fisheries, water transport, tourism based on water sports, and its wise use for industrial purposes; besides electricity generation. Will there be any obstacles in the optimum exploitation of water resources, its management and usage of the benefit for the betterment of Nepal and Nepali people under federal structure? In case of obstacles, how should they be resolved? How would it be addressed? What issues should get special attention while adopting federalism? How could people’s participation be made more meaningful and inclusive for equitable access to and utilization of water resources while ensuring equitable sharing of benefits? What kinds of decisions on water resources will result in the maximum benefit of the country and the people? It is essential to have serious thoughts and extensive discussions on this matter. Thus, it would be appropriate to hold discussions on the following points with regard to the water resources in federalism:

2.1 Nepali people’s Right to Natural Resources Under the universally accepted principle of right to natural resources each Nepali citizen bred and brought up in any part of the country is entitled to equal right to the available natural resources of the country in any part of the country. For example, the Nepali people living in the concrete jungle of Kathmandu valley are entitled to the same equitable right on the trees, plants, woods, wildlife, herbs, etc. of renowned Charkose jungle (Green wealth). However, after the country is divided into different provinces under the federal system, complexities over sharing of natural resources is certain to arise. However, people of Manang district have misinterpreted the right to harvest ‘Yarsagumba’ (a medicinal herb) as their exclusive right and this has resulted in a shocking incident in which seven unarmed, innocent people from Gorkha district were killed by local people. This incident has revealed that with the imminent implementation of federal structure people have started subscribing to the idea that people of one province will not get anything from the other province, even before the adoption of federalism in the country. Therefore, it is high time to analyze the negative impacts that may result while sharing water resources after the adoption of federalism and to assess whether or not the existing Nepali economy can bear the burden of the uncontrolled and unlimited expenditure in the name of federalism?

2.2 Water Resources Despite being one of the natural resources, the nature and forms of utilization and benefiting therefrom in the case of water resources is entirely different from other natural resources. It is necessary to identify the existing differences between water resources and other natural resources in the context of the federalism. By involving themselves and working as entrepreneurs local people can benefit directly from natural resources like land, forests, herbs, wildlife, minerals, etc. through collection, utilization and other forms of use i.e., harvesting fruit from trees and by cultivating land, collecting herbs, etc. Water resources, however, cannot be utilized in this manner. At the micro level local people can benefit from micro irrigation schemes, micro hydropower, tourism based on water sports and other industries. But the benefit from water resources can only be maximized by ensuring its optimum exploitation which is likely to be hindered by fragmentation of the country in very small units in the name of federal structure. People are already discussing division of water resources under federalism which is premature without its optimum exploitation.

2.3 Drinking Water
There has been an age old practice of buying a source of water of one village by another village. After twenty years of conception of the idea of diverting water from Melamchi River of Sindhupalchowk district through underground tunnels into Kathmandu Valley to resolve the drinking water problem of the capital city, the contract for the execution of the project was concluded only recently. Although, this will deprive the local people from using the water of this river, traditionally used by them, no arrangement has been made to recompense them for being deprived as such. In the meantime, local people have been putting forward various demands for compensation, including sustained source of income for them. However, arrangements for such sustained source of income cannot be made by hiking the cost of drinking water for consumers. If source of this project is to fall in one state with right to self determination while Kathmandu valley in another state, the complexity of this project will get compounded.

Water is an essential “commodity” for human beings; also for plants and other land and aquatic/marine wildlife. Water has also become a product for sale like other commodities. The tap water also bears a ‘price’ because of the stance taken by multilateral financial institution with respect to water supply utilities. The water sold in plastic bottles, jar or similar vessels and tankers has become a profit making business rather than a service oriented activity.
It was heartrending that about 500 Nepali citizens had to lose their lives untimely last year due to the outbreak of diarrhea, mainly in Rukum and Jajarkot districts of Mid-west region (and several districts of Far-west region), which was caused by lack of potable drinking water and sanitation facilities. In this backdrop, it has become imperative, to incorporate a clause in the constitution declaring access to potable water supply in adequate quantum and also for sanitation facilities as one of the fundamental rights. Only such a provision will be able to respect the human rights.

2.4 Hydropower
Implementation of a large hydropower project may mean economic prosperity for some, but it also entails several negative impacts on the local people. For example we have numerous examples where local people living in the vicinity of the large hydropower project sites do not have access to electricity even for lighting their homes.

From the perspective of production and use, even though the Western development region produces the highest quantum of electricity (about 330 MW) in the country, it consumes only half of what it produces. However, the Eastern development region consumes 20 times more electricity than what it produces (14 MW). The Central development region consumes a little more than its production (275 MW). Even if the existing five development regions are to be declared as the five provinces, this type of happy sharing will not be possible. Simple issue like pricing can spin out of control and provinces with more generation capacity can shut off power if the price is not right. There is even a possibility that if India is to buy at a higher rate, then a province could choose to export it rather than supply to other provinces. Thus, provisions should be made in the new constitution to vest the power in the Centre regarding the formulation of policies and laws for large hydroelectricity projects and the production, sale and distribution of the electricity and give power to local governments for small scale hydroelectricity projects;, should also incorporate local people’s rights and responsibilities in this regard.

2.5 Priority ranking of uses of water resources
Regarding the utilization of water resources, the Section 7 (1) of Water Resource Act, 1992, categorizes drinking water including for water for domestic use, irrigation, and agriculture based utilization like animal husbandry and fishery with first, second and third priority, respectively, whereas electricity generation rates fourth priority. However, after the implementation of hydropower project, the priority of the Water Resources Act will be superseded by the license granted which will entitle the hydropower project water in a specific quantum thereby rendering the priority ranking of the law irrelevant.

Following the implementation of a hydropower project, the local people living in the upstream reaches of the river will not be able to undertake projects to irrigate new land because of the project’s water rights. The project’s electricity production will decrease if the quantum of water available to the project is reduced, and consequently, project’s revenue too will decrease; thereby rendering the project unfeasible. . In order to avoid this, the Rule 10 of the Electricity Regulation guarantees specific quantum of the water to the licensee in accordance with the license. If the Upper Karnali Project, for example, is implemented, the people in Jumla will be denied the opportunity of further consumptive uses of water from the Tila River. Thus, under the existing laws although irrigation rates the second priority, the implementation of a hydropower project in downstream area will change the firm priority in the upstream area in order to guarantee specific quantum of water under the license for the hydropower project.
Priority accorded to drinking water by the law have been negated by the farmers time and again when the farmers break water supply pipelines, whenever monsoon rains fail, to irrigate their field during the plantation season thereby triggering extreme scarcity of drinking water to the consumers. This may have been taken as a simple incident in the unitary system but it could lead to serious incident in the federal system.

It has been said that the water of Yangri and Larke Rivers of Sindhupalchowk district will be diverted into Kathmandu valley to supply drinking water to the denizens there in the second and third phase of Melamchi Project. It may create problems as one hydropower project has already been implemented and construction work of several other projects is underway. Thus, it creates potential for serious disputes if several smaller provinces are to be created in the name of federal structure.

2.6 Shortage of Water in the River
Diverting water through canal/tunnel for a hydropower project creates dewatered area in a stretch of the river similar to the impact of Marshyangdi project on Marshyangdi river on the highway to Pokhara. If the electricity produced in one province is to be utilized in another then it will be difficult for the local people to agree to allow the construction of the hydropower plant due to this problem. Thus, the new constitution should ensure equitable access to and use of water resources, equitable sharing of the benefits, participation of local people in policy and decision making, monitoring and evaluation process, meaningful inclusive participation of nomadic Rautes (on the verge of disappearing), poor indigenous/janajati/women/dalit, excluded community without any discrimination on political economic, social, cultural, religious grounds.

2.7 Multipurpose Project with Reservoir
A hydropower project with reservoir results in negative externalities by a magnitude than a run of the river project. The Kali-Gandaki A hydropower project, which stores water on a daily basis impacts less adversely than Kulekhani hydropower project, which stores water around the year. Apart from submerging land, forests (and wildlife), tourist site, temple, and local infrastructure, the construction of a reservoir project displaces local people.

2.8 Downstream benefit
With the implementation of a reservoir project, downstream areas stand to benefit due to availability of water even during the dry seasons due to augmented/regulated flow from the project. Such water can be used for industries, drinking and sanitation purposes, and for irrigation. The downstream areas will also benefit from water sport based tourism as well due to watershed improvement. If a project on water bodies involves two or more provinces, the water resources regulations will prohibit the people living in the upstream will be deprived from the consumptive uses water as explained above while people living in the downstream areas will benefit as water will become available even during dry season for the purposes of irrigation. Similarly the province where the project is located will suffer due to submergence/inundation of land and displacement of the populace. In such a circumstance, the province where the project is to be located and the people in the upstream area will hardly be willing to have the project implemented.

2.9 Irrigation According to the official record, there are nearly 4 million hectares of arable land (of which the major portion in the lowlands) in Nepal. Of which only 500,000 hectares (less than 13 percent) has irrigation facility, mostly during the rainy season. Thus most land produce only one crop in a year; only if the rainfall is good. Crop yeld is bad if the monsoon is late, which results in food scarcity. In order to make constitutional provision of food security, it would be better for the political leadership to prepare a strategy and implement an effective plan of action to promote cash crop and ensure crop yield at least three times in a year, and prevent youths from going abroad and working as cheap laborers in the name of weak remittance. For this, reservoirs can be built in the mid-hills to collect rain water (during the raining season) and use it for the remaining eight months. If Nepal’s Terai is to become a separate province, the possibility of such a project will be reduced because a reservoir project will inundate land in the upstream areas resulting in displacement of local people while the people in the lower basin areas will stand to benefit through irrigation and other use of perennial source of water.

2.10 Flood control
The construction of a reservoir will also control flood and landslides in downstream areas during the rainy season. However, disputes could arise between the provinces in upstream and downstream areas as the province in the upstream area will have to pay a high price to control floods in the province in downstream areas.

2.11 Resettlement Construction of a hydropower project with reservoir is not possible in the plains. It is possible only in the hilly area. Conversely there is not enough land in the hilly area to resettle people displaced by such a project due to lack of habitable lands. While there is enough land for resettlement in Terai but after declaration of Terai as a separate province, resettlement of people from hills in Terai will not be acceptable as it may disturb ethno-socio-cultural pattern of the area. The Tharus of the Western Terai have already refused to let the people displaced by the West Seti Project to be resettled in their area. After the delineation of separate provinces, the people of the upstream areas who stand to lose their land and be displaced by the construction of dams for hydro projects to provide electricity in other cities and irrigate downstream areas may not easily give consent to such projects.

2.12 Delineation of boundaries
Rivers have been used to delineate most of the districts, administrative zones and development regions of Nepal since long time. If two provinces are delineated on the basis of a river, there is a possibility for the two provinces to have different aspirations, needs and priorities, which will result in disputes forcing non-implementation of projects based on water resources.

2.13 Provincial conflict
Since that Nepal is all set to adopt federalism in the country, the disputes over sharing river waters in the neighboring countries of India and Pakistan should serve as an eye opener to the problem. There exists a dispute between Panjab and Haryana over sharing river water. Likewise, Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra, Gujarat and Rajastan are involved in a dispute over sharing the waters of Narvada River. There has not been much headway following the serious dispute between Tamilnadu and Karnatak over River Kaveri. Due to disagreement of Bihar Uttar Pradesh was unable to build a hydropower project in Kanpur.

According to the Indian constitution, water resources is considered a provincial issue. Even though the constitution gives the Centre the power to deal with disputes regarding a river that flows through several provinces, dispute settlement has not been easy. Federalism appears reasonable for a large country like India, but a country like Nepal which is smaller than average Indian provinces, the disputes that may arise between several smaller provinces regarding the appropriate use of water resources may pose serious challenge. The dispute between Pakistan’s Panjab and Sindh provinces regarding Kalabag project has impeded its implemtation. The local people who depend on water bodies for their livelihoods have been sidelined from participating in the formulation of policies and decision making, as well as in the evaluation and monitoring of appropriate uses of water. Thus, their right to inclusive participation on this matter should be ensured in the constitution without any discrimination on economic, political, social and cultural grounds.

Long before the discussion on federalism began Nepal has already signed Gandaki, Koshi, Mahakali and the Tanakpur treaty which are detrimental to Nepal. This happened while Nepal had unitary structure. With fragmentation on ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic lines in the name of federalism outsiders may pit Nepal’s one province against the other and take undue advantage. We can also learn from the challenges of federalism from other countries. If we make a hasty decision in adopting federalism and dividing the country, future generations would blame it on today’s intellectuals, writers of the constitution and all those who accepted it.

3. Optimum Exploitation of Water Resource
Along with the concept of state restructuring on ethno--cultural-religious-linguistic lines people are also talking of division of the water resources. Without ensuring optimum exploitation of it, what could be divided in the situation obtaining at the moment is the division of flood during rainy season and drought during dry season. Nepal can benefit by ensuring optimum exploitation and distributing such benefit from multidimensional uses of the water resources.

It is obvious that indiscriminate fragmentation of this small country into more than 10 provinces on ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic lines will render Nepal unable to ensure optimum exploitation of water resources. Being different from other natural resources, there will not be much to distribute amongst various provinces if optimum exploitation couldn’t be achieved. In the case of water resources, Nepal and her people can benefit only by ensuring optimum exploitation, prudent management and benefit maximization through positive externalities.
Due to lack of river basin approach, sites that can result in multidimensional benefit have been “given” away as projects that will deprive Nepal from benefits of a magnitude. a prominent example is Upper Karnali project, which is an ideal site for 4,180 MW installed capacity with reservoir that has potential to irrigate up to 1.5 million hectares of land even in dry season and also flood control. However, GoN has already issued a license for this project as a run-of-the-river project of 300 MW.

Similarly, GoN has also failed to understand the potential benefit from electricity consumption in Nepal and have earmarked a number of good project sites that can generate quality power cost effectively while Nepal is suffering from the vagaries of load shedding.

4. Suggestions If necessary provisions are not made in the new constitution on the basis of above mentioned examples and suggestions to draw maximum benefits from water resources projects, the country is certain to face several obstacles. Nepal is geographically a small country and if it is divided into smaller provinces under federalism, the country is certain face problems in drawing benefits from water resources. Thus, it is crucial for the decision makers to give timely thoughts about restructuring the country into fewer provinces.

In view of the above, the best solution for Nepal is to declare provinces on the basis of river basins of large river systems. As Mechi River has a limited catchment area, we can have a Sapta Koshi-Mechi province in eastern Nepal. The river basin of Sapta Gandaki could be declared as the second province. Mahakali River too has a limited catchment area in Nepal, and therefore, we can have a Karnali-Mahakali province in west Nepal. The restructuring on above lines will be as depicted in following map: The right to decide the maximum use of a river that flows through a province should rest with the concerned province. Owing to the geographical realities of the country, the possibilities of disputes over water resources would be minimal if limited provinces are restructured on the basis of watershed areas of major river systems of the country.

In recent years, a trend has developed to obtain license by individuals or organizations from within the country and abroad to harness river water. This has denied local people to draw benefits from the river that flows from their area. This calls for reform in water policy in two ways. First, local people should have the preferential right to obtain certificate for the use of river water. Secondly, the local people who do not have the required capital to implement such water resources projects should be given the opportunity to have share in it through other means, and develop their ownership in the project. In this way local people will not be denied from the opportunity of investing in water resources projects and draw benefit from it. This will also prevent those who want to be rich by dealing with the certificates. Various demands (or protest activities) that may arise or may be raised in the name of local people could also resolve the problems associated with the successful implementation of such projects.
Since that most of the water resources projects could be basically capital oriented, there is not any possibility to charge high royalty from such projects. Thus, the right to get such royalty should rest with the concerned province, and it would be appropriate to make arrangements to spend the money only on rural electrification and for the construction of canal system for irrigation.
The question as to what kind of constitutional provision should be made in the federal set up regarding the preservation and use of water resources is very important. The suggestions have been made because it will be appropriate to make constitutional provisions for the maximum utilization of water resources through its conservation and wise use:
  • From the discussions held so far the new constitution envisions three levels of governance system – centre, province and local level government. Each level of the government will have the power to monitor the preservation and use of natural resources within its jurisdiction. Other powers will also be similarly divided between the three levels.
  • Water resources cannot be compared with other natural resources as it is not limited to one place, nor is it always limited to solid or liquid form, or remains underground, or above the ground, or in all the places or in all forms. However, it is essential for everybody. If it is not properly managed it can invite disasters. Thus, by considering its special characteristics and nature, it is necessary to specify it in the constitution as a fundamental duty of citizens to preserve it.
  • Since that water has its own distinct characteristics and inevitability, the ownership of which cannot be limited to one province, local government or community. Thus, the power of control over it should rest with the Centre. The Central, provincial and local governments should have the power to mange and regulate it.
  • Water resources form a part of the system of water cycle. Thus, water resources management should be done by understanding this water cycle. With the objective of drawing maximum benefits from the wise use of water resources it would be appropriate to collect available statistics on it, conduct feasibility studies of projects to be based on water resources, conduct research and analysis on it, formulate policies and strategies regarding it, set criteria and standards about it, outline priorities pertaining to project development, and include it within the rights and responsibilities of the Centre to give approval to technical aspects within the set criteria.
  • It would be appropriate to include the management, monitoring and the running of projects within the jurisdiction of the Centre, or the irrigation projects that are to be built in two or more provinces, hydro-power projects, construction of reservoir and buildings to generate hydro-electricity, central electricity grid, drinking water projects etc.
  • It would be appropriate to vest the power to the province to implement (by itself) mega and medium levels of hydro power, irrigation, drinking water and recreation based projects that will be limited within the province and are within its resource capacity, and needs to be implemented on the basis of the basic criteria and priority set by the sangh (organization). Moreover, it would be better to make a constitutional provision to rest the powers and duties to the provincial government regarding the supply of electricity by itself within its territory whether by linking or not linking it to the central grid.
  • It would be better to make a clear constitutional provision whether to allow local governments to initiate, implement and manage small scale projects, or to involve the private sector to do it.
  • It would be contextual to make necessary provisions for the Central, provincial and local governments to collect revenue from the projects implemented within their jurisdiction through an arrangement to make an equitable distribution of it by the Centre among the concerned provinces and the province to do the same among the local governments.
  • It would be better if set up Constitutional Commission on Environmental or Natural Resources at the Central level and Council on Environmental or Natural Resources, or Corporation at each executive level to settle disputes that may arise among provinces or among local governments. Likewise, Committee on Environmental or Natural Resources should be formed at the Legislature level and, Environmental Court or Green Bench at the judiciary level.
  • Despite our long experience in social, cultural and religious diversity in the country, in view of the inevitability of our inter-dependence, lack of capacity, and inexperience of the federal system, maximum utilization of the country’s water resources would be possible only if the residual power for its management rests with the Centre.
  • There is a provision in Interim Constitution for the Legislature-Parliament to support, approve, or pass any general treaties or agreements on sharing water resources other than those that may not have extensive, serious or long-term impact on the nation, with the majority of the its members present. There is a need for clear interpretation about the extensive, serious and long-term impact of the activities pertaining to certificates issued for business investment, the distribution of the profits drawn from selling of electricity, and whether the distribution of profits made according to the treaty would be acceptable. If it is clearly stated in the constitution that it would be specified by a future act of the Government, it would help to remove suspicions about passing an act with the purpose of deviating from the intentions and provisions of the constitution. It would be better to give a thought about including a provision in the constitution as to the need for parliamentary approval to issue certificate for the initiation of projects with a certain specification, capacity, or size.
  • There should not be any provision in the constitution to allow the export of electricity or other services relating to water resources in foreign countries though private entrepreneurs on the basis of letter of certificate, or through the provinces themselves. Since that the matters pertaining to the use of water resources is sensitive from physical, strategic and security reasons, it would be practical as well as contextual if the power relating to the use and sharing of water resources with foreign countries rests with the Centre.
Conclusion
These suggestions could form the basis for distribution of power and responsibilities among the Centre, provinces and local governments. The government’s decision about opening universities in the Mid-western and Far-western developmental regions resulted in heated debate, especially about the city where they were to be established. And, the debate still rages on. The decision about naming the capitals of the future provinces following the restructuring of the state cannot be free from such debates. Thus, it is necessary for the decision makers to do proper home work in this regard, otherwise the class that are happy to see such disputes without trying find any solutions would be quick to point out the anomalies of other people’s ideas. After the official declaration (on the model) of governance system, the importance of suggestions made in the concept paper on the equitable use and distribution of benefits of water resources would increase even more. It can be expected that there will be serious discussion over it after the model of federalism is determined. The editor and publisher believe that the ideas expressed in the concept paper prepared and published in March would also serve as a guideline to the CA members and experts engaged in the drafting of the new constitution in various thematic committees of the Assembly.

Published in Janakari Patra – Chaitra 2066 (Mar-Apr, 2010)